It is three years since the Moscow Meeting of the
representatives of 81 communist and workers parties of the world took
place marking a notable historical event for the entire international
communist movement of our time. Just as in 1957 the 1960 meeting
adopted the appropriate documents which were the result of a free and
full exchange of views brought about in conformity with the principle
of unity through consultations. The Declaration of the meeting and the
appeal addressed to peoples make up the joint program of the
international communist movement.

The world historical significance
of the Moscow Declarations lies in the fact that these documents,
proceeding from a deep, scientific, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the
great revolutionary processes that have taken place in the world,
define in a correct way the basic characteristics of our epoch, the
common laws of socialist revolution and of socialist edification. They
universalize the rich ten-year long experience of the class struggle of
the entire international communist movement and specify clearly and
correctly the principles and duties of the communists of the whole
world towards the most important issues of present world development.
Alluding to the most important theoretical, political and programmatic
problems of the communist movement the documents of the Moscow Meeting
formulate in a scientific way conformable to principle, its strategy
and tactics at the present stage and give a sound cue for every
revolutionary communist in the fight to abolish exploitation of man by
man, to defend democracy, peace, national liberation and for the
triumph of socialism and communism throughout the world.

Reaffirming once again the general 'truth of Marxism-Leninism, the
meetings of the representatives of the communist parties and the
documents adopted by them emphasized in a categorical way that the
communist movement can fulfil its historical mission with success only
if it abides faithfully by the lofty principles of the Great October
Revolution, if it indorses the indispensability of the socialist
revolution and carries it forward to its ultimate conclusion.

Firmly upholding the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism the
Moscow Declaration laid before the communist movement the very
explicit, unhesitating and unequivocal duty of fighting without
leniency against imperialism and reaction, the duty of upholding peace,
national liberation and socialism, the duty of strengthening the
socialist camp and of setting up a new world free of capitalists and
exploiters.

These concrete tasks are neither vain desires nor daydreams. They
represent an objective necessity arising from the historical reality of
our times and are, therefore, real and attainable. The revolutionary
tasks of the communist movement are determined on the basis of a class
analysis of the basic contradictions of the present time and of the
ratio of forces at work today in the international arena, they express
the general law of development of the history of the world.

The time that has elapsed since the meetings of the representatives of
the communist and workers parties and subsequent world events of the
recent years have reaffirmed in an incontestable way the correctness of
the general line of the communist movement defined in the Moscow
Declarations, the vitality and strength of its theses and principles.
The cause for which the communists and all the peoples of the world
fight has forged ahead. A ratio of forces on a world scale has already
been created and is getting ever stronger in which one can clearly see
the superiority of the forces of socialism over those of imperialism,
of the liberation forces over those of colonialism, of the democratic
and revolutionary forces over those of reaction, of the forces
upholding peace against the warmongers. The new and important
achievements which the socialist camp has attained, its all-round
consolidation, the continuous growth of its role and influences has
enabled the world socialist system to become a more and more decisive
factor in the development of human society. Quite the contrary is
happening to the imperialist system, the sphere of influence of which
is setting narrower ' and narrower. In spite of its frenzied resistance
imperialism has not succeeded in curbing the great impetus of the
anti-imperialist revolutionary movement. Heroic Cuba detached itself
from the system of oppression and exploitation of the American
imperialists. This has been a great revolutionary event of our time.
The world significance of the Cuban revolution lies in the fact that it
was carried out with success in the American continent right before the
noses of the United States of America. Secondly, that it succeeded in
warding off with pluck and courage the biggest reactionary force the
world has yet known, the American imperialists, manifesting in this way
the weakness of imperialism and the strength of the socialist
revolution.

The war front against imperialism and colonialism, both new and old,
has taken such proportions as never met with at any other time before.
Asia, Africa and Latin America .have launched such a revolutionary war
as to shake the very foundations of the imperialist system. The
Algerian people, who won their freedom by a long and bloody struggle,
are continuing their endeavors to safeguard and further their
revolutionary achievements. The liberation war of the peoples of the
Portuguese colonies in Africa is waxing strong and the struggle of the
broad masses of the people of South Africa against racial
discrimination and for freedom and democratic prerogatives has received
a new impetus. All the African countries are exerting great efforts to
oppose neo-colonialism and to strengthen their independence and develop
their economy independently.

The heroic people of South Vietnam who are coming into direct contact
with the American war machine, are waging successfully a gigantic war.
Invincible are the patriotic forces of Laos who firmly oppose
imperialist intervention.

The class struggle in capitalist countries everywhere is becoming more
bitter and the revolutionary movement of the masses of the people is
continually gaining ground everywhere. We are today witnesses of a new
aggravation of the contradictions within the ranks of the world
capitalist system. The process of decline and decay of bourgeois
society has been going on without interruption.

All of these important processes reassert once again the correctness of
the conclusions and theses of the Moscow Declarations that the new
ratio of forces, which keeps changing in favor of socialism and to the
loss of imperialism, creates new and more favorable conditions and
possibilities for the struggle against imperialism, in defense of peace
and national liberation, of democracy and socialism. If the present
favorable international situation is correctly assessed and utilized to
the utmost by the communists it will give them all the opportunity
needed to lead the revolutionary practice with success and to be at the
height of the tasks which history has charged them with.

But in contrast with the recent successes of the revolutionary
anti-imperialist forces, we cannot pass by unstressing the great damage
the modern revisionists, represented by Tito-Khrushchev group, have
caused and are causing to the cause of peace and socialism. During this
period the Marxist-Leninists have had to wage a war on two fronts.
While on one hand, abiding faithfully by their triumphant doctrine and
the revolutionary principles of the Moscow Declarations, they have
mustered all their efforts to utilize to the maximum the present
favorable international situation in order to further the revolutionary
and national liberation

struggle, on the other hand, they have untiringly combatted the modern
revisionists who, having totally renounced the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism and trampled underfoot the declarations of the 1957
and 1960 meetings of the communist and workers parties, work against
socialism and in favor of the imperialists, obstruct the revolution of
peoples and undermine the socialist camp, split the international
communist movement and wreck the war against imperialism.

Today, six years after the 1957 Declaration and three years after that
of 1960, at a time when the modem revisionists have launched their
general attack against Marxism-Leninism and those who uphold the
teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, one can plainly see the
historical and , decisive importance to the world communist movement
and to the future of the revolution, of the imputation of modem
revisionism as the main peril to the world communist movement at the
present stage as well as the call to fight it until its final
ideological and political collapse. The accurate diagnosis made on this
pernicious disease in the most important documents of the communist
parties rendered a great service to the entire revolutionary movement
of peoples. The detection of the ideological and political roots of
revisionism and the warning to beware of its peril, served to frustrate
its obstructionist plans, the plots and maneuvers of Nikita
Khrushchev’s revisionist group and at the same time to sharpen the
vigilance of peoples against this new peril.

The thesis of the Moscow Declarations on revisionism did not only sound
the alarm but it also helped to mobilize all the communists to engage
in a firm battle against opportunism. This thesis was a correct
Marxist-Leninist directive which tore the revisionists’ plotter’s mask,
frustrating their secret plans to carry out their perilous work. The
successes that the sound Marxist-Leninist forces have scored so far in
their fight against modern revisionism are due to a great extent to the
fact that the Moscow Declarations expressed themselves firmly and
unhesitatingly and in a communist way conformable to principle, against
modem revisionism. Without fighting revisionism, Lenin has said, no
successful war can be waged against imperialism, nor can the great
cause of socialism make any headway. What is of significance is the
fact that the Moscow Declarations are permeated throughout with the
spirit of combat against revisionism, and all their theses are worded
taking into account the eventuality of polemics with them.

Modern revisionism is characterized by its total capitulation to the enemy of the class in all its fronts

During recent years and especially since the publication of the
Declaration of the Moscow meeting of the 81 communist and workers
parties, one can see a precipitating evolution of the modern
revisionists towards moving away from the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism, towards intensification of undermining activities
against the socialist camp and the international communist movement,
towards closer contact and open collaboration with the imperialists.

This evolution is already completely crystalized and presents a fully
distinct and typical phenomenon. If a few years ago N. Khrushchev’s
group tried to keep certain superficial features of Marxism-Leninism,
tried to disguise themselves behind certain revolutionary phrases using
demagogy on a grand scale, now they are coming out in the open
propagating a downright revisionist code in all fields, filled with
opportunist formulae and theses, contrary to Marxism-Leninism and the
Moscow Declarations.

In this sense, that is, in the evolution which modem revisionism has
made in recent years, it has assumed certain new characteristics,
touching not only the theoretical and political field but transcending
also into the internal state organization and the international
inter-state relations. In one word, modern revisionism is characterized
by total capitulation before the class enemy in all fronts.

First and foremost the modern revisionists have already completely
revised the basic theses of Marxism-Leninism on the revolution, the
dictatorship of the proletariat and edification of socialism and they
have embraced the social democratic views of class collaboration and of
subservience to the bourgeoisie. Negation of the Marxist-Leninist
theory of proletarian revolution and of proletarian dictatorship, which
constitutes the sum and substance of the infamous program of the League
of Jugoslav Communists is borrowed and is being zealously propagated by
all the modem revisionists. Now these people do not speak any longer
either about the class struggle nor about the revolution, but about
«integration of society», «integration of states», which, it is
claimed, is conditioned by the social and economic transformations that
have come about in the world after the second world war. Thus, if we
are to mention one of the latest examples, in a document of the Central
Committee of the Italian Communist Party entitled «Towards a new
advance and towards the unity of the international communist movement»
it openly stated that the way of the October Revolution «is a strategy
that does not conform to the actual situation» since, it is claimed,
now «the sum total of the objective and subjective changes that have
come about in the advanced capitalist countries have led to important
changes in the state orders and structures». Proceeding from this
assertion, that is, that the nature of imperialism and capitalist
society has changed, the leaders of the Italian Communist Party state:
«the search for new ways of acquiring and directing state power assumes
major importance to carry on positive talks with the social and
political forces which in the advanced capitalist countries are
essential to setting up a new block to govern». And these social and
political forces are the social democratic movement and the Catholic
movement, which, according to the Italian leaders, «have power and
roots in Western Europe, even in the working class».

Queer in these declarations of the Italian leaders is the concept that
the class struggle of the working masses led by the proletariat can be
replaced by talks with the social and political forces, that the
dictatorship of the proletariat can be substituted for a new block of
power which would include both the social-democrats, that have already
proved to be inveterate servants of the bourgeoisie, and the
demo-Christians, who represent the upper classes of the bourgeoisie and
of reaction. In the Italian document, which pretends to teach the whole
communist movement, not a word is said about the historic mission of
the working class, about the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie
and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means
to ensure the triumph of the revolution and about building socialism.
Revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat do not even figure as
words let aside as conceptions. The final goal of the proletariat, of
their struggle and endeavors is, according to the conceptions of the
leaders of the Italian Communist Party, to arrive «at a socialist
solution, which will be capable of guaranteeing a high rate of
production, to carry out an economic plan in which the initiative of
the individual will have free play, to direct society by guaranteeing a
broad system of political autonomy and prerogatives, to promote (free
research in the field of culture and continuous confrontation of ideas».

The above quotations point out with clarity that the Italian
revisionist leaders have fallen into the clutches of the ideology of
the social democrats, have mastered it well and are zealously
propagating it. The structure which Togliatti and his companions
propose is nothing else but the present bourgeois, order already
established in Western Europe, with, of course, a few concessions in
the field of democratic bourgeois rights which figure more or less in
all the programs of social-democratic parties.

It is not the «socialist solutions» which are now in vogue everywhere,
but the overthrow of its power and the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat that the bourgeoisie is afraid of; it
is not economic planning but expropriation of capitalist property and
the establishment of socialist property that frightens it. The
bourgeoisie is not afraid of political autonomy and freedom but of the
abolishment of the privileges and rights of exploiters, of the
relentless war against bourgeois ideology.

It is not the revisionists in the capitalist countries of Western
Europe alone that curry the favor of the bourgeoisie and more so of the
social democrats, but N. Khrushchev himself who gives the cue to his
followers, has set the first example and has given the directives for
such favors. For some time now the leaders of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union have been striving to find a common language with the
heads of social-democracy and to coordinate their views with them on
the main international issues of the present which, of course, affect
the most important ideological and strategical matters of the
international communist and workers movement. Since the 20th Congress
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and particularly, since N.
Khrushchev’s group launched their open attacks against the communist
parties which uphold Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Declarations, the
attitude of the European social democrats towards the Soviet leaders
and their followers has become very lenient and encouraging. This
activity is accompanied at the same time, with a persistent and all
round pressure on Nikita: Khrushchev to urge him to forge ahead both
towards coming into closer contact and collaborating with the
imperialists as well as to introduce bourgeois liberalism into the
internal life of the Soviet Union.

The same thing is now happening with Khrushchev as with Tito when he
came out in the open against communism and when the most reactionary
social-democrats gave him an all round assistance to keep him on his
feet. The encounters of the heads of social democracy with the Soviet
leaders, which have lately become more frequent, have assumed a very
cordial character. Such terms as «unity of views on certain issues»,
«loyalty to the cause of peace», «reciprocal benefits from exchange of
views» and others like these are never lacking in these encounters.
This year alone N. Khrushchev has received official visits from the
principal leaders of European social democracy and from its prominent
ideologists and has conducted talks with them. Among these are the
Belgian socialist leader, former NATO secretary and now Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Brussels government, Paul Henri Spaak. the newly
elected leader of the Labor Party and eventual candidate for the
Premiership of the English government, Harold Wilson and a delegation
of the French socialist party headed by Guy Mollet.

Wherefore all this pilgrimage of the social democrats to Moscow
precisely now, at this junction of affairs? The answer is given by the
pilgrims themselves. This is what Spaak stated in his political address
to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization in its
present session:

«Khrushchev is trying to make an experiment of peaceful coexistence and
the West should not make it harder for him to make this experiment. It
would be a frightful and inexcusable mistake if we discouraged him.

At this moment the future line of demarcation will no longer be between
communists and non-communists, between the colonized and the
colonizers, between ideologies and races. We are witnesses of the war
between those who await the opportune moment and the inhuman
doctrinarians on one side and those who have trusted on in progress and
have never stopped hoping on the other. Let us not let this occasion
escape from our hands».

Wilson expressed the same idea in his speech to the House of Commons
after his return from Moscow. «Khrushchev,» said he, «has shown great
courage defending his policy of coexistence against, what I think, some
kind of resistance in his country and to pressure within the communist
world.

We must face the fact that a failure in the present negotiations
(referring to the negotiations which N. Khrushchev’s group are carrying
on now with the imperialists), if this failure is attributed to us, it
would lead to strengthening the position of those who, in the communist
block are only too willing to criticise Khrushchev’s policy of
coexistence».

The French socialists were even more outspoken when Guy Mollet said to
foreign journalists in Moscow that they had taken up with Khrushchev «a
number of questions covering all the theoretical and doctrinarian
problems of a permanent nature which characterize the relations between
the social-democratic and communist parties.» In an interview for the
press Gerard Jacque, the director of the «Populaire» said before the
delegation set out for Moscow:

«We have long since given up polemicizing with the Soviet Union and
acknowledge the fact that this country is entirely in the phase of
evolution. A whole epoch has come to an end and not a word of reproach
has appeared in our press against the Soviet people.

The problems that are raised are those of democracy and democratic
guarantees, of the single party, of the role of the socialist party in
socialist society, of the nature of the socialist regime and of its
structure.

The attitude maintained by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in
the divergences between Moscow and Peking manifest a positive
explanation of this party towards political dogmatism and sectarianism».

These statements go to show that big steps have already been taken
towards ideological and political contact and collaboration between the
modern revisionists and the social-democrats. As far as Spaak, Mollet,
Wilson and their companions are concerned N. Khrushchev and his
followers have given ample proof theoretical and material, that they
have renounced Marxism-Leninism and revolutionary wars, that all the
obstacles that had separated them from one another before have been
practically removed and that conditions have been created for alignment
and collaboration. What are these proofs?

In the first place, as Spaak affirms, N. Khrushchev is crossing the
«line of demarcation» which separates the working class and its
revolutionary vanguard from the bourgeoisie and its lackeys and is
joining the camp of non-communists against the communists, of the
colonizers against those under the colonial yoke, the camp of the
opportunists and the lackeys of the bourgeoisie against the
Marxist-Leninist and the socialist camp.

The frenzied attacks which N. Khrushchev’s revisionist group have
launched against the Communist Party of China, the Party of Labor of
Albania and other Marxist-Leninist parties, their dissentient and
undermining activity against the socialist camp and the international
communist and workers movement, have not only aroused a great joy and
pleasure among the older opportunists but they have also given the
necessary proof that «the modern revisionists renounced political
dogmatism and sectarianism», that is they have renounced
Marxism-Leninism. Similarly pleased are the right wing leaders of
social democracy to take note of «the evolution» which is now taking
place in the Soviet Union and certain other socialist countries of
Europe where the doors have been flung open to the bourgeois ideology
and manner of living. It is not to no purpose nor casual that the
leaders of social democracy are singing dithyrambs to Khrushchev, to
call him «a wise and enlightened man». Guy Mollet stated in a press
conference that he was convinced that «a positive evolution is taking
place in the Soviet Union» which, according to his words, is summarized
in these matters: «Acknowledgment of many ways to build socialism»,
which, as we all know, in N. Khrushchev’s interpretation means that
socialism can also be built by keeping «the bourgeois economic and
political» structure intact; «the end of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, which means renunciation of one of the basic issues of
Marxism-Leninism and of socialist revolution, «internal evolution»
which means the end of ideological struggle, bourgeois liberalism etc.

Now the right-wing leaders of social democracy in Europe, with a
century long experience in the service of the upper bourgeoisie, do not
only extend to N. Khrushchev all the help they can but they also
address pathetic appeals to their imperialist masters and to all the
reactionaries of the world to help him so as not to let the «great
occasion» of the modern revisionists «slip from their hands. »

But the social democratic leaders do not seem to be eager to give their
aid unconditionally, without demanding other concessions in the
ideological field and without fresh capitulations in the field of
politics, without further submission to imperialism. Their demands
cover a wide range of problems, but the principal ones are reduced to
urging N. Khrushchev to keep undermining the socialist camp and give up
the socialist achievements of the peoples of the Soviet Union and of
the countries of the People’s Democracies have attained. These demands
were openly formulated in a very concrete way by the delegation of the
French Socialist Party at the long talk they recently had with the
leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet' Union. According to the
evidence given by Guy Mollet at a press conference in Paris after his
return from Moscow, he demanded of Khrushchev that «the communists»
give further «democratic guarantees» in order to win the confidence of
the bourgeoisie. Thus, for instance, as a democratic guarantee he cited
toleration for many parties (i.e. bourgeois parties) in the socialist
countries and a share for them in the government, the abolishment of
the cooperativist system in the countryside (as a condition to
reestablish capitalism), modification of the electoral system to
include antisocialist candidates in the electoral lists and so on. In
the international field the French socialists demanded as «a democratic
guarantee» the sacrifice of the German Democratic Republic to be
swallowed up by Bonn.

Of course the bourgeoisie have always cherished such ambitions and
predilections but now there exists a new situation in which the modern
revisionists of N. Khrushchev’s group are concretely bargaining about
these matters, when there are sample proofs that the traitors to
Marxism-Leninism and to the victorious socialist revolution have made
many concessions and have capitulated before so many demands of the
bourgeoisie and imperialism. In this field there is practically a great
peril which should not be belittled especially since the modern
revisionists have not only leant an ear to but have actually begun to
put these suggestions into practice.

Coordination of the policy of N. Khrushchev’s group with that of Tito’s
clique means coordination of the policy of the modern revisionists with
that of the imperialists

N. Khrushchev’s group’s relations with Tito’s clique throw some very
dear light on the revisionist evolution of the leadership of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The latter have not only renounced
the duty set forth in the Declaration of the 81 communist and workers
parties with regard to continuing to expose the Jugoslav revisionists
and to wage firm battle against the latter’s anti-Leninist views but
they have established close collaboration with them in the ideological,
political and economic fields. There is not much way to go from Tito to
the social-democrats, one little step is all one need make. And this
little step is now being taken.

N. Khrushchev’s visit to Jugoslavia during the latter part of August
and the first part of September gave a public confirmation of his
coordinated activities with the Titoite clique. In the official
speeches delivered during this visit Tito and Khrushchev stated: «in
connection with the international situation and the actual
international issues we note with satisfaction an identity of views
concerning the main point». It is clear that this identity is not based
on the analysis and conclusions of the Moscow Declaration, this is
clear for Tito’s clique have more than once disowned it and they have
asserted that they pursue a different policy from that of the communist
movement. Therefore «the identity of views» about the international
situation and the international problems rests on Titoite views and
line which are coordinated from head to bottom with the American
imperialists and totally in their service. This <identity» proves at
the same time that Khrushchev too has coordinated his policy with that
of the imperialists. His attitude towards the socialist camp in the
matter of disarmament, and especially towards the liberation movement
of the peoples of Asia. Africa and Latin America, is entirely the same
as that of Tito’s clique and equally favorable and profitable for the
imperialists. It was not at all casual or a matter of coincidence that,
after the signing of the Moscow Treaty on nuclear tests and following
N. Khrushchev’s visit to Jugoslavia, Tito set out on a long voyage to
some countries in Latin America and had an important political powwow
with ex-President Kennedy on this occasion. Tito has acted as N.
Khrushchev’s envoy and go-between to assure the American imperialists
on behalf of the Soviet leader and to coordinate further joint actions
in the field of international relations. Not to mention other things
like those of capitulating concessions which N. Khrushchev intends to
make to the imperialists in his attempts to conclude the so-called
non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, or in the
question of Berlin and the peace treaty with Germany where he is
d’accord to sacrifice the interests of the German Democratic Republic,
we are citing a very significant example of Tito’s and N. Khrushchev’s
«political identity». It is already well known that Latin America is
one of the most revolutionary zones of the world, one of the continents
where, as a result of the anti-imperialist struggle of people, the
positions of the monopolists of the USA and of the native bourgeoisie
have begun to shake from their roots. In order to suppress this
movement and to maintain their power, the American imperialists spare
nothing, neither the billions of dollars for the «Alliance for
Progress», intervention of armed forces, coup d’état nor the Peace
Corps. And in spite of all this big arsenal of suppression, bribes and
propaganda they have not been able to suppress and to quell the
revolutionary spirit of the people who fight for their freedom and
independence. But even in this zone of uprisings the imperialists stand
in need of the assistance of the revisionists who come to rescue them
from their inevitable perdition through their policy of dissension and
defeatist propaganda. This is how a big Italian political periodical
comments Tito’s visit to Latin America, which the latter undertook with
N. Khrushchev’s approval and blessing after they had come to terms on
«a joint policy towards neutral countries»: «In the political and
ideological front» the periodical asserts, «there are signs of a.
desire to define a line of progress in the world towards equality and
social justice without resorting to the severity which characterized
the edification of socialism in Stalin’s Soviet Union or in the present
Chinese People’s Republic».

This quotation shows clearly that the press of the upper bourgeoisie
and its patrons are well aware that Tito and Khrushchev do their utmost
to check people from fighting for national liberation and freedom, from
fighting the American imperialists, the biggest international
capitalist exploiters and international gendarme, from pursuing the
example of the October Revolution, from fighting for socialism like
Stalin, or as the People’s Republic of China and other socialist
countries did.

N. Khrushchev’s group are zealously following the example of Tito’s
clique not only in the field of foreign policy. The Soviet leaders have
recently adopted many methods of the Titoite regime in the internal
affairs and administration of the country. During his sojourn in
Jugoslavia N. Khrushchev showed great interest in the «original»
methods applied in Titoite Jugoslavia; he called the «workers councils»
a progressive form and announced that a Soviet delegation would go to
Jugoslavia to study their experience. The western press links this
decision with «the attempts being made now in the Soviet Union to
democratize the apparatus of production» meaning the application of the
forms and methods «of the Jugoslav specific socialism».

Just where these «original experiments», «e.g. the self-governing
workers councils» discontinuance of planning, abandonment of foreign
trade monopoly and others have led Jugoslavia, is clearly seen by the
present Jugoslav reality which bears witness of a return to capitalism
in all phases of life there. But very significant is the fact that N.
Khrushchev’s group too are forcing on the Soviet Union «experiments»
and «original methods» of the Titoite type, which are leading to the
decline and degeneration of many important sectors of the economic,
political and cultural life of the country, to a revival of the
phenomena and manifestations inspired by bourgeois ideology. The
predicament of Soviet agriculture is a result of this kind of
experiments, or better still, of the revisionist line and departure
from socialist principles pursued by Nikita Khrushchev now. Just how
grave the situation in agriculture has become causing great
deficiencies in provisions of bread, meat, butter and others, leading
almost to ration cards, is proved by the fact that a country holding
first rank in agriculture and having always exported grains, is now
obliged to import large quantities of wheat from the capitalist
countries and paying over a billion dollars for it.

The same predicament is manifested in the economic relations of N.
Khrushchev’s group with the member countries of the Economic Council of
Mutual Assistance whom they could not provide with bread and which are
now obliged to turn to the West for grain. One way or another, N.
Khrushchev is driving these countries to relations of dependence with
imperialist states, just as Tito wishes to have them depend on American
credits and surplus agricultural products.

Another field in which the policy imported from the Titoite clique is
being practiced is that of culture and art in which one sees a relapse
towards bourgeois decadence, pessimism, fatality and loss of
revolutionary sentiments and conceptions. In the Soviet press itself
one has recently come across articles deploring manifestations of
degeneration in the life of youth, cases of gross corruption among
important functionaries of the state and of the party. Cases of theft,
arson, violation of communist ethics and so on are becoming frequent
phenomena and are thriving under the general trend of libertinism and
of imitating the western way of living.

N. Khrushchev’s line of capitulation to imperialism and to bourgeois
ideology does not of course rim so smoothly. His revisionist course
runs up against an ever growing resistance and opposition by the
communists and the Soviet people, of all those who fought for the
October revolution and in defense of its achievements, of those who
toiled and sweated to set up the industrialization of the country and
the collectivization of agriculture, of those who defended with arms in
hand the great socialist Fatherland against the Hitlerite invaders, of
those who have the destiny of the Soviet Union and of peace at heart.
It is precisely because N. Khrushchev encounters such resistance that
he borrows the experience of Tito’s clique in this matter too. In order
to quell this resistance he resorts to repressions towards the
opponents to his policy, to purges, to reorganization and expulsion of
revolutionary communists from the ranks of the Party. It is precisely
because his line is opposed by the members of the Party and the
non-party masses that he uses Titoite methods of degeneration and of
turning the Party into a shapeless, nonpolitical lump, on one hand and
the revisionist whip on the other.

The line of purges, repressions, expulsion and so on is followed, under
N. Khrushchev’s bidding, in many cases by communist parties of the
non-socialist countries, where the revisionist leaders discredit the
revolutionary communists calling them «renegades» and «anti-party
elements» and so on. But in spite of being persecuted the communists
loyal to Marxism-Leninism, whether in the party or outside it, never
lay down their arms. They are joining up, organizing themselves and
establishing real revolutionary parties of the working class, loyal to
the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and resolute fighters against the
imperialists and the revisionists.

No matter how much N. Khrushchev may try, to what demagogy and
repressions he may resort to, be they ever so savage of the Titoite
brand, he will never succeed to waylay people for long, to prevent, the
communists from defending Marxism-Leninism and from smashing
revisionism to smithereens. The future belongs to Marxism-Leninism, to
communism. History has already given its verdict and no treachery, be
it ever so base, can ever halt their triumphant march ahead.

N. Khrushchev’s revisionist line is for the imperialists, against the socialist camp and the liberation movement of peoples

The Moscow Declarations have stressed in very clear and unequivocal
terms that the imperialists, with the Americans at the head, are the
principal enemies of peoples and of the revolution. They emphasize that
the imperialism of the United States has now become the main center of
world reaction, a bastion of colonialism, an international gendarme and
the biggest international exploiter. The United States represent today
the main forces of aggression and of war and are the common, savage and
cruel enemies of all peoples. But what is the attitude N. Khrushchev
and all other revisionists maintain towards American imperialism? Now,
far from abiding by the clear-cut line envisaged by the communist
movement, they have advanced from spreading illusions about imperialism
and its nature to open collaboration with it and capitulation to its
dictates. The recent agreements entered into by N. Khrushchev’s group
and Washington as well as their secret talks under way are nothing else
but fresh plots of the imperialists and the revisionists against the
socialist camp and peoples. The modern revisionists strive to put into
effect the plan trumpeted abroad by Tito and embraced by N. Khrushchev,
of the «economic integration» and of the «political integration» of the
world, a plan which serves to realize the major counterrevolutionary
strategy of the American imperialists to establish their sway over the
entire world.

Since the Moscow Declaration was proclaimed towards the end of 1960,
significant events have taken place in the international arena which
laid bare N. Khrushchev’s true inveterate revisionist features and
those of his followers. N. Khrushchev’s capitulation to the American
imperialists at the time of the Caribbean crisis, his
anti-internationalist stand of a collaborator with the enemies of the
socialist camp in the Sino-Indian border conflict, his signature
attached to the Moscow nuclear treaty which is directed against the
people and is in favor of the imperialists and the like, proved beyond
dispute that the modern revisionists, intimidated by the American
imperialists succumb to their threats and degenerate into voluntary
propagandists, into political agents and tools of imperialism.

N. Khrushchev’s adventuresome, opportunist and capitulating attitude
towards the Caribbean crisis last October set the whole opportunist
line of the modern revisionists at naught, showed the rottenness of
their ideological positions and the peril which their political
behavior has in store for peoples who fight against the imperialists
and in defense of world peace. In spite of the deafening noise and
atomic palaver, he withdrew in a very disgraceful way at the first
threat of the American imperialists. It was only the manly stand,
determined and deeply revolutionary, of the Cuban people and their
leaders and the powerful solidarity of all the progressive men with
Cuba, that resisted with success the aggression of the United States.
As to Khrushchev, he did not only betray the just cause of the Cuban
people but went so far as to legalize the demand of the American
imperialists to intervene in the internal affairs of other peoples. He
agreed to it that international missions of supervisors, which in fact
means missions of the Pentagon and the Central Investigation Agency be
sent to Cuba, as he had done before for the Congo.

Now, no matter how hard N. Khrushchev and his followers may try, how
many resolutions they may adopt and how much they may swear that they
pursued an elastic policy in the Cuban affair and reached profitable
compromises, facts are facts, they capitulated to and accepted the
American injunction. N. Khrushchev’s compromise was to the advantage of
the imperialists and to the loss of socialism, was profitable to the
reactionaries and to the disadvantage of the liberation movement of
peoples. From all last year’s ups and downs in the Caribbean crisis all
that remains, as far as N. Khrushchev is concerned, is the general
impression that he is afraid of the revolutionary wars of peoples and
that for the sake of coming into closer contact with the imperialists,
he is ready to sacrifice them at the first occasion of their encounter
with American resistance.

We could cite other examples, but the attitude of the modern
revisionists towards the Caribbean events shows clearly of what stuff
their conception of peaceful co-existence is made of and what it
represents. By setting off the revolutionary and liberation wars of
peoples to the struggle for peace, they violate one of the basic
principles of Marxism-Leninism and one of the historic duties that
evolve on the socialist countries to be in the vanguard of the war of
peoples against imperialism, and particularly against American
imperialism.

The Moscow Declarations attached great value to the revolutionary wars
of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America against imperialism
and colonialism and considered them a powerful force in defense of
peace throughout the world. Therefore the stand taken towards the
revolutionary wars of these countries serves as an important criterion
by which to distinguish the Marxist-Leninist from the revisionists, in
order to tell who defends peace in reality and who helps in reality the
imperialists. But what else could N. Khrushchev’s passive, disdainful
and antagonistic stand towards the liberation and anti-imperialist
movements of peoples be but an anti-revolutionary one in defense of the
big capitalist bourgeoisie? N. Khrushchev’s call to the peoples who
fight against the imperialists and colonialists in defense of national
independence and popular democracy, to stop fighting and put their
trust in the assurances, pledges and «the good will» of the «wise»
leaders of American imperialism, goes to prove that the revisionists
have dipped the .banner of war against imperialism and colonialism,
that they have betrayed the interests of the proletariat and have
degenerated into bourgeois pacifists, into plain social democrats.

One of the typical characteristics of modern revisionism today is that
it has embarked on joint actions with American imperialism and
international reaction against the socialist countries. By joining with
the imperialists in an anti-Chinese campaign and plotting together with
them, N. Khrushchev’s group renders great assistance to the Indian
reactionaries to launch an armed aggression against the People’s
Republic of China. They are vying with the American and English
imperialists in supplying Nehru with arms, in vituperating against
People’s China, in splitting and driving a wedge through Sino-Indian
friendship. It is very plain that by upholding the aggressive policy of
the Indian reactionaries and their friends, the imperialists, N.
Khrushchev does not intend to deal a blow to the People’s Republic of
China, to split the socialist camp and to undermine its unity alone.
With a view to staining the peaceful and consistent policy of China and
to drive a wedge into Sino-Indian friendship, he intends to discredit
the great role and influence of the revolutionary example set by
People’s China to the liberation wars of the peoples of Asia, to
belittle the importance it exerts in the struggle of these peoples
against imperialism, for national independence, economic development
and progress. In this respect, leaving all others aside, N.
Khrushchev’s group acts as a reactionary detachment in favor of the
imperialists, against national liberation and social emancipation of
the young Asiatic states.

Another coordination of the policy of the modern revisionists, another
plot of theirs and gross treachery to the interests of the peoples of
the entire world, is to be found in their signing the Moscow Treaty on
a partial ban of nuclear tests. However contradictory it may seem but
it is a fact that while the modern revisionists on one hand capitulate
to the imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail, they, on the other
hand, resort to atomic blackmail towards the peoples of the socialist
countries and all the peoples of the world themselves. The Moscow
Treaty served as another touchstone of the anti-revolutionary and
chauvinist policy of the big state which N. Khrushchev has long been
practicing. With a view to giving an example of their «elastic» foreign
policy, to show that the destiny of the world depends, allegedly, on
the will and agreements of the two big powers, to show the alleged
effective workings of N. Khrushchev’s so called policy of peaceful
coexistence, by signing the treaty the Soviet leaders did not even
hesitate in betraying the interests of the Soviet peoples and of the
peoples of the socialist camp, of betraying the interests of the peoples of the whole world.

When they put their signature down in Moscow against nuclear tests the
Soviet leaders sold off at the same time the interests of other peoples
in many other matters. In the first place they fulfilled a great desire
of the American imperialists, namely, that the socialist countries
should not be assisted in strengthening their defensive power against
the aggressive designs of the USA, that a kind of recognition foe given
to the discredited policy of two Chinas, that the interests of the
German people be sold off in the question of the international status
of the German Democratic Republic. Finally N. Khrushchev’s group
together with the imperialists who possess nuclear weapons intend to
establish their joint monopoly on nuclear weapons so that they can
resort to atomic blackmail and preserve their zones of influence intact.

However hard N. Khrushchev and his friends may try to embellish the
Moscow Treaty, the latter expresses the sum and substance of the
chauvinistic policy of the big state which he pursues, it expresses the
fetishism of nuclear weapons and the distortion of the theory of
Marxism-Leninism. It expresses the opportunistic essence of
revisionism, and of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, violation of the
teachings of Marxism-Leninism on wax and peace, peaceful coexistence
between states of different social systems and fraternal collaboration
and mutual assistance among socialist countries.

The conclusion of the Moscow Treaty is, of course, not the end, as the
revisionists themselves affirm, but the beginning of further
collaboration of N. /Khrushchev’s group with the imperialists directed
against the socialist camp and the peoples of the world. There are
already a number of various projects pending decision by the leaders of
the Soviet Union and the USA and concerning their relations in the
political, economic and military fields. First and foremost N.
Khrushchev is trying to strike up a new alliance with the American
imperialists and, as a recompensation, to abandon his alliance with the
socialist countries. If the American imperialists have not yet given
their consent to this proposal, which is known by the pretty name of
«non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Treaty», it is because
they have come up against an opposition of their western allies which,
for various reasons, do not find these negotiations between Khrushchev
and the White House to their liking; on the other hand, being well
aware of the weak position of the Soviet leaders and their inclination
to come to terms under every condition, the American imperialists are
eager to wrest to the maximum of concessions from them.

Another bargain that is now being conducted between N. Khrushchev and
the Washington leaders, is the talks for an agreement to envisage a ban
on spreading atomic weapons to other countries that do not possess them
at present. This agreement aims at keeping atomic monopoly and as a
consequence the monopoly of atomic blackmail to bind the Soviet Union
not only to refuse necessary assistance to the People’s Republic of
China to strengthen its defensive power, but to hinder it to possess
modem weapons of warfare. On a wider scope the fresh concessions the
imperialists demand of N. Khrushchev’s group aim at weakening the
defensive power of the socialist camp, at disarming and isolating the
national liberation and anti-imperialist movement and to leave the
countries which have recently won their national independence
defenseless against imperialist aggression.

The modem revisionists try to justify all these shameful capitulations
and arrant betrayals of theirs by «theoretical arguments, to explain
them as «successful solutions» arrived at in a correct way, of the
problems of our days. They claim in a very awkward and absurd way that
the changes that have occurred in the world have also changed the
nature of our epoch, the nature of war and the nature of class laws,
they have changed also the nature of imperialism, the feasibility and
necessity of social and national revolutions are meager,
Marxism-Leninism has become an outdated dogma and that the conclusions
of the Moscow Declarations have lingered behind and have not kept pace
with events and so on.

Without fighting revisionism the cause of the revolution and of socialism cannot forge ahead

Under these circumstances, when the modern revisionists are
capitulating headlong to the imperialists, when they have launched an
open and unprincipled assault against Marxism-Leninism, against the
socialist camp, against the revolutionary movement of peoples and
against the communist parties, it behooves the Marxist-Leninist to draw
the line between them and the modem revisionists and to wage a
relentless war against them. True communists cannot bargain with either
the revisionists or with principles. Now the issue is clear-cut: either
with the Moscow Declarations and against revisionism, or against the
Moscow Declarations and with opportunism. In our epoch it has become a
high internationalist duty for every communist to uphold the Moscow
Declarations. Marxism-Leninism develops always at loggerheads with all
kinds of opportunism. The Marxist-Leninist never lose sight of Lenin’s
teachings and example who has repeatedly stressed that without first
doing away with opportunism from the ranks of the working class,
without cleansing it of revisionists, the war against imperialism
cannot be a successful one, the cause of revolution and socialism
cannot be brought to a successful end. The damage which the modern
revisionists have so far caused to the international communist movement
and to the liberation movement of peoples is very great but it can turn
to a serious menace if the communists will not oppose it with all the
revolutionary fervor that characterizes them.

N. Khrushchev has recently appealed in a demagogical and cunning way,
to put an end to the polemics within the ranks of the communist
movement, in other words, to put an end to the fighting which the
Marxist-Leninists wage against modem revisionism and in defense of the
Moscow Declarations. It is not, of course, out of good will that N.
Khrushchev resorts to this often-repeated maneuver of his. Like all
opportunists, he too would have refrained from demanding peace, if
everything was working smoothly for and if the situation was favorable
to him. He has manifested his bad faith as a plotter and putschist in
many cases. He has manifested it in the Bucharest meeting, at the
Conference of the 81 parties, at the 22nd Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, at the time he strove to wreck the talks
between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party
of China last July etc. But at the same time, when he sees himself in
straits, when the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist rise against him, and
above all, when he is about to hatch fresh plots against the socialist
camp and the communist movement he shows it again by making
«peace-loving» proposals to end polemics.

The present situation in the international communist movement is by no
means favorable to the modern revisionists. In spite of N. Khrushchev’s
and his followers’ attempts to put a stop to debates, yet a strong
debate is going on between the communists and the revisionists in all
parties, countries and continents. Whole parties, large groups of
communists and masses are rising to condemn the revisionist course of
N. Khrushchev and those who blindly obey him. All prevarications,
demagogies, intrigues and pressures of the revisionist leaders of
certain parties to keep the masses of the communists away from these
debates, to prevent them from getting in touch with the documents of
the Communist Party of China, of the Party of Labor of Albania and of
other Marxist-Leninist parties, are meeting with failure. Abiding
faithfully by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, upholding the Moscow
Declarations and in battle with revisionism, the communists are today
organizing new revolutionary organizations or strengthening the
existing ones almost everywhere. These nuclei of Marxism-Leninism are
striving today to alienate the masses of party members from revisionist
influence, to smash the attempts of the revisionists who stand in the
leadership against the will of the masses of the parties and to prevent
the parties from becoming social-democratic. The internationalist
communists are engaged in a big revolutionary job of spreading
Marxism-Leninism and exposing revisionism. It is precisely this
natural, irresistible process that N. Khrushchev tries to stem through
his recent proposal to put an end to polemics. Having no other
arguments in store but his demagogy, he tries to maintain the status
quo in the communist movement, so he may be able to go ahead unhampered
in dissentient work, so he may stab the communist movement in the back
and the Marxist-Leninists may watch his anti-Marxist doings as
lookers-on.

On the other hand N. Khrushchev, as we said above, is negotiating with
the imperialists and is looking for new fields for capitulating
compromises, for closer contact and collaboration with them. And it is
natural for him to object to having his policy exposed under such
circumstances. But the communists cannot be silent. If they did such a
thing that would mean to stop fighting the imperialists, the common
enemies of all peoples, it would mean to stop fighting for the
revolution for peace, for communism. The communists have not hushed nor
will ever hush when N. Khrushchev and the other revisionists betray
Marxism-Leninism or capitulate to the imperialists. They will continue
to expose N. Khrushchev’s so-called peaceful coexistence, to fight
against the Moscow Treaty, which is gross betrayal and humbug, to
oppose his collaboration with the Indian reactionaries and the
imperialists against the People’s Republic of China, to discard with
disdain the chauvinist concepts and principles of the big state of the
Soviet leaders, to condemn the revisionist splitters of the unity of
the socialist camp and of the communist movement, to uphold the
revolutionary struggles .of peoples, to defend the Moscow Declarations,
to fight for peace and socialism.

Loyal to the spirit and principles of the Moscow Declarations, the
Marxist-Leninists are always for unity and strive to maintain and
strengthen it. But they are opposed to such rotten unity which N.
Khrushchev desires, a revisionist unity based on capitulation and
obeisance to his dictates. The Moscow Declarations have defined well
and explicitly on what basis the unity of the communist movement should
rest. Therefore only through abiding by these definitions, loyally and
fully, can unity become real and lasting. One of the basic conditions
and most important premises to preserve unity, as the Declarations
point out, is precisely the fight against modern revisionism which
constitutes the main peril to the communist movement.

The struggle which the communists have waged in defending the purity of
Marxism-Leninism, in defending and carrying out in practice the Moscow
Declarations, has dealt a heavy blow to the revisionists. The process
of exposing, isolating and smashing them ideologically is forging ahead
full speed and there is no force to stop it. The revisionists
themselves help this process advance through their day to day acts,
their collaboration with the imperialist enemies, their outright
betrayal of the interests of peace and of the revolution.

The communists have embarked on a great class battle on two major
fronts: against the imperialists and the revisionists. The battle is
bitter and hard, but they see the future with optimism, convinced that
it belongs to socialism and not to imperialism, to Marxism-Leninism and
not to revisionism. The communists build this future with their own
hands, with their daring, determined and uninterrupted struggle against
all the enemies of the class — the bourgeoisie and its opportunist
servitors, they build it by strengthening their combative unity, which
no force in the world can break, just as-there is no force in the world
that, can stem the tide of progress of the great ideas of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin, to stop the triumphant march of peoples towards
communism.